Albos Law relieved a client of an unpaid revolving debt which, having been assigned to an investment fund by the creditor financial institution, had been judicially claimed from her (Judgment n. 273/2022 of 23 November 2022 issued by the Court of First Instance n. 3 of Lleida).

As opposition to the order for payment claim filed by the investment fund, we broke down our client’s defense into two allegations, one main and one subsidiary:

– Primarily, we alleged the lack of documentary accreditation of the debt claimed, as the documentation provided did not reflect the essential conditions of the credit claimed from our client, which left us defenseless; in turn, we alleged a lack of determination of the amounts claimed, due to discrepancies between what was claimed in the lawsuit and the debt certificate issued by the financial institution provided.

– In addition to the above, we also requested the nullity of the interest applied due to the existence of usury, as well as the insurance contract imposed on our client because it had not been expressly subscribed by our client, and the commissions for claiming unpaid debts that she had been charged for being abusive. Since the sum of the amounts paid for these concepts, which we verified from the debt certificate provided by the plaintiff, was three times the amount claimed in the order for payment proceedings, we requested the offsetting of claims, in accordance with the provisions of art. 408 of the Civil Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil). 

After the order for payment proceedings were converted into declaratory proceedings, and the plaintiff filed her corresponding challenge to our opposition to her claim, the proceedings were set for judgment, as neither of the parties requested a trial hearing.

We have recently received the judgment in the case, in which the judge ruled that, as we had alleged, the claimant’s credit was not duly accredited, since the documentation provided by the investment fund that was the beneficiary of the assigned credit did not reflect the essential conditions of the same, and therefore could not prove that the capital claimed came from that legal transaction, nor could she assess the abusiveness of the conditions claimed by this representation. For all these reasons, the court dismissed the claim filed on the contrary in its entirety, releasing our client from the payment of the debt that had been judicially claimed from her.